Donald Trump has suggested that diet soda might protect against cancer, a claim made public by Mehmet Oz during an appearance on his son's podcast. The remarks triggered swift pushback from medical professionals who felt compelled to clarify that no scientific evidence supports the idea.
Oz, a cardiothoracic surgeon now serving as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, described a scene aboard Air Force One where Trump defended his consumption of Fanta by arguing it must have protective properties. "He says, 'You know, this stuff's good for me, it kills cancer cells,'" Oz recounted on the podcast Triggered with Don Jr.
The justification centered on an observation about herbicide effects. "Your dad argues that diet soda is good for him because it kills grass, so therefore it must kill cancer cells inside the body," Oz explained. Trump also suggested the drink could not be unhealthy since it contained orange juice from concentrate, which he characterized as "fresh squeezed."
Don Jr offered a counterargument to the doctors' skepticism, noting his father's apparent physical vitality. "I know a lot of guys pushing 80, not a lot have his level of energy, recall, stamina," the president's son said.
The claim prompted immediate correction from the medical community. Dr. Owais Durrani, an emergency physician based in Texas, posted a direct statement: "Friendly reminder from a doctor, diet soda or soda does not kill cancer cells."
Dr. Zachary Rubin, a Chicago pediatrician specializing in immunology, used satire to highlight the logical flaw. "If Fanta is able to kill grass, then it could kill cancer cells, which means it must not be bad for you. Therefore, by the same logic, that would mean that bleach is a superfood, which we all know doesn't make any sense," Rubin said.
The scientific record on diet soda remains mixed but offers no support for cancer prevention claims. Most diet sodas use aspartame, an artificial sweetener roughly 200 times sweeter than sugar. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified aspartame as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in category 2B, a designation indicating limited evidence of potential harm rather than established danger.
A 2022 French study tracking over 100,000 participants found aspartame was associated with a 15 percent higher cancer risk. However, researchers stressed the finding did not prove causation and could reflect other factors influencing the subjects' health.
Research suggests aspartame may alter gut bacteria composition in ways that could affect metabolism. Scientists at Cedars-Sinai documented measurable differences in intestinal microbial diversity among those consuming artificial sweeteners compared to control groups.
Havovi Chichger, an associate professor at Anglia Ruskin University, previously highlighted concerns about sweeteners and digestive health. "There is now growing awareness of the health impacts of sweeteners such as saccharin, sucralose and aspartame, with our own previous work demonstrating the problems they can cause to the wall of the intestine and the damage to the good bacteria which form in our gut," Chichger told the Guardian.
Trump has long defended his consumption of sugary drinks and fast food, framing his choices around quality control standards at major chain restaurants rather than nutritional benefit. Oz acknowledged this rationale on the podcast, noting the president's view that large, established food companies maintain rigorous safety protocols.
The comments arrive as the health department prepares to update national nutrition guidelines, with plans to revise the food pyramid to emphasize "real food."
Author James Rodriguez: "The logic here is indefensible, and doctors are right to speak up. But the broader issue is that casual pseudoscience from prominent voices still reaches millions of people who might actually believe it."
Comments